The Supreme Court gets a crack at this silly-law today. Several years ago the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) started hitting the legal skids as it was struck down here and there at the state level. I don't care about this much and on another level I do care a lot.
The entire DOMA thing was trumped up much akin to O'Reilly's yearly "war on Christmas". It was and is a blatant politic act of war on a bogeyman that doesn't exist. That is the part of this I care about a great deal. Go to google and look up "marriage, history of" and its an eye popper. I particularly like the part when our ancestors here, in the United States, just said "hey we are married" and left it at that.
A couple years ago, a federal judge in Massachusetts struck down DOMA as a violation of the 10th Amendment. It set the tea party pot boiling. Conservative's hair burst into flames. It was folly, pandemonium ruled...save the kids, bury the silver. Others have sued the United States because certain provisions of same-sex marriage aren't recognized by the IRS and other taxational interests as are m/f marriages; the result being a second-class of couples who are married but given a non-equal status. Hmmmm.
It also might just boil down to the simple fact that the states and local jurisdictions within the states issue marriage licenses (depending on the state). There is no Federal Marriage License so there is no law or set of regulations from that source and as states go, requirements, waiting periods, etc. vary from state to state. If you think about it, and some do, a marriage license granted by the state is as much of "you can be married" as it is "here are the rules". With the permission comes the stipulations. A marriage license granted by a state means simply that permission is extended and you abide by the rules that surround it and the act of marriage itself.
DOMA takes away one part of the state's interest...that of the rules that govern marriage within the state. That was the distinction without a difference that Massachusetts judge was getting at...and that is what the 10th amendment so clearly states.
That is what really irks me about all this. There is nothing to "defend" as there is no threat and the entire institution of marriage is what you believe it to be as it has such a hodgepodge of "tradition" as to be all inclusive instead of "them and us".
I'll feel better when this thing is settled if for only I don't have to listen to Faux Noise (Fox News) lament the death of civilization as they know it.